President Trump Directs Pentagon To Create A 'Space Force' In What Is Surely Not Any Kind Of Distraction From Crying Children

from the three-card-donnie dept

You may recall that about this time last year, the House of Representatives put together a budget that included funding for a brand new military branch dubbed the Space Force. At the time, our take is that this was always inevitable, as humanity tends to carry its war-making luggage everywhere we go and, since we go to space, we're going to have a Space Force. More surprising was the pushback from those who have a thing or two to say about military matters, such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who noted that setting up a new military branch was hellishly complicated, and required congressional approval.

Mattis, in a letter to Rep. Mike Turner -- an Ohio Republican leading the congressional effort against the Space Corps -- said he was opposed to adding "additional organizational and administrative tail" to the Pentagon.

"At a time when we are trying to integrate the Department's joint warfighting functions, I do not wish to add a separate service that would likely present a narrower and even parochial approach to space operations," Mattis wrote.

One can read that as government-speak for: "No, this is stupid, why are you proposing this, everything is going fine, hey, is this thing even on?" Currently, space-based operations for the military are headed up by the Air Force Space Command. There is no denying that orbital operations are critical to the success of the United States military, given all of the satellite assets currently floating around the near-inky void. There has also been no indication that the Air Force is not up to the job, given the current lack of space-based infantry skirmishes or ground (ahem) operations.

This week, however, President Trump directed the Pentagon to create his new Space Force. It would be absolutely absurd not to notice the timing of the announcement that grabbed at least some of the headline space from news organizations that would otherwise have been directed at video and audio of toddlers in cages as they wept openly for their parents. It seems the Dear Leader couldn't help but notice this timing either, even as he made his announcement.

In remarks that ranged over a variety of unrelated topics, Mr. Trump began by saying current U.S. employment levels were the best "in recorded history" and blaming current immigration problems on the Democrats, saying "we have the worst immigration laws in the entire world" and that ongoing issues could be resolved "very quickly if the Democrats come to the table."

Turning his attention to space, the president praised the National Space Council and its chairman, Vice President Mike Pence, for its work re-focusing national space policy, saying "for too many years, our dreams of exploration and discovery were really squandered by politics and bureaucracy. And we knocked that out."

"My administration is reclaiming America's heritage as the world's greatest space-faring nation," he went on. "The essence of the American character is to explore new horizons and to tame new frontiers. But our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security."

Look, space exploration is sorely in need of funding. That said, nothing about creating a new fighting force for space is going to be quick, easy, or bring about the kinds of results we could see either by funding current space exploration organizations (hey, remember NASA?) or private companies now taking up the challenge. As the Pentagon noted in its response, this foray into the final frontier is going to take a long, long time to set up.

The Pentagon's chief spokesperson Dana W. White issued a statement suggesting the process will take some time.

"We understand the President's guidance. Our Policy Board will begin working on this issue, which has implications for intelligence operations for the Air Force, Army, Marines and Navy. Working with Congress, this will be a deliberate process with a great deal of input from multiple stakeholders."

One can read that as Pentagon-speak for: "Uh, okay, but this is going to take, like, forever." Which, honestly, is probably besides the point. Whatever you might think of the current politics and immigration policy on display, there is little denying that this grand announcement came on the heels of a deluge of negative press and headlines for the President. Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, hopefully we're all in agreement that space operations are important. If we do, then we should likewise agree that callous calls for massive new programs and full military branches being used as a distraction are an affront to that importance.

Re: Re: Are you really distracted that easily?

Do you think that topics for official government speeches/remarks are randomly pulled out of a hat

For Trump? Yes, but without the hat—I don't get the impression his words are "specifically chosen", and saying he's intentionally trying to distract us might make him seem more strategic than he is. It's just as likely he got distracted himself.

Re: Are you really distracted that easily?

Well, we just pulled out of the UN Human Rights Council, so I guess it wasn't so much of a distraction. Hell, we ought to just burn the damn kids at the stake, it's an American tradition like the witches ;)

Re: Re: Are you really distracted that easily?

Is it bad that I can totally see that happening?

BTW stop whining about becoming like 1930s Germany. We're actually heading for a regime like Brazil's, complete with massive shanty towns surrounding oases of prosperity and an appalling human rights record, but with access to nuclear weapons.

In remarks that ranged over a variety of unrelated topics, Mr. Trump began by ... saying "we have the worst immigration laws in the entire world"

For all his many, many very real faults, he's dead right about this one. Virtually everywhere else in the world--including all the countries we get the most immigrants from and that criticize us on our treatment of immigrants--illegal immigration is treated as a very serious crime. Here, we've got a non-trivial fraction of the populace, large enough to influence policy in some places, that treat it as a virtuous act deserving of official protection! And that's simply insane.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, not everyone who thinks illegal immigration is illegal bows to the Cheeto Benito.

I do not see refugees as illegal immigrants, especially since they are seeking asylum - that is, seeking permission to stay.

Just as with all things, it's nuanced. I believe in stronger immigration enforcement, yet am okay with sanctuary cities - as long as they foot their own bill (with regards to the illegals), including for incarceration of criminals.

I know that Trump has deeply hypocritical views on legal immigration - especially given his family's history as relatively recent immigrants (his granddad was Bavarian). It's especially striking how it smacks of anti-Italian and anti-Irish rhetoric of the early 20th century.

I don't like the man, and I don't like how he has handled anything to do with immigration. However, bringing US border policy, and enforcement of it, in line with nearly every other country in the world? I don't see that as a bad thing.

I just could do without the nonsense about unfeasible walls, and the cheering idiots who think adding the National Guard to the Border Patrol means more shooting at border-crossers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sounds about right. Here's your problem: a lot of people wink at illegal immigration not because they're flaming bleeding heart liberals but because they take advantage of the cheap labour.

Heck, even the most outspoken "enforcement" factioners have been caught with the odd member of staff of dubious origin.

If you're going to enforce border control, then, it's time to get honest about what your nation's needs actually are and work with them. Season passes and check-ins via mobile apps for migrant workers might be effective for those who come in for economic reasons.

I'd also recommend ending the war on drugs and stopping interfering in the politics of other nations — that's what drives the refugees in your direction.

Basically, stop creating refugees and find a legal way to enable migrant workers to work.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Many of us do want those that hire illegals thrown into prison, but all too often your folks NOT taking us seriously is preventing that conversation... because the moment we talk about it, the deck of cards naming game comes out instead.

So how about your take them "seriously" first to find out? I take you all seriously while trash talking your ideas! If I can do do, you should be able to as well!

The issue is far more subtle than a lot of people care to ack

Despite the fact that I don't buy the current "think of the children" media narrative, I don't think that economic migrants that are already here are a problem. The ones that avoid deport orders are proving themselves even if they did manage to sneak in.

Criminal aliens should be a priority.

I can't fault strict enforcement or the letter of the law being followed.

I think it's absurd that people want those in government they view as Nazis to selectively enforce the law. That's rather deranged.

Democrats wanting Trump to act as King rather than sorting out the issues themselves are committing basic civics fail.

This crap is what you get when you embrace sloppiness and expedience because "the feels".

Re: The issue is far more subtle than a lot of people care to ack

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No you do not.

There's no plan to go after these people. There's no talk to after the root causes. This is show boating nonsense to get racists smiling.

I used to try to argue these points will pinheads like yourself and realized that you know full well you are full of shit and that people will relent just to be done with you if you keep shitting out of your mouth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you're going to enforce border control, then, it's time to get honest about what your nation's needs actually are and work with them. Season passes and check-ins via mobile apps for migrant workers might be effective for those who come in for economic reasons.

Even if we stop 100% of illegal immigration at the borders (an impossible feat, but that's besides the point), it STILL won't stop illegal immigration in the US.

As explained in Adam Ruins The Wall, a majority of illegal immigrants came to the US legally. They just didn't leave when they were supposed to.

There's also the fact that it's darn near impossible/super expensive to find and deport all 11 million or so illegal immigrants already in the US.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Illegal border crossing"

Cute magic trick. Unfortunately, illegal border crossing is not the same as undocumented immigration - hence why the very person you are replying to pointed out that most undocumented immigrants cross LEGALLY and then overstay their visas.

The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

Frankly, I would expect to get separated from my family if I broke the law anywhere. I really don't get this strange sense of entitlement that SJWs have when it comes to breaking laws, ignore proprietors, and ignoring any notions of decorum.

I would expect to get arrested myself. I would also expect to get kicked out of a Starbuck's and have the cops called. I would also expect to get arrested despite my DAR card.

Re: The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

Frankly, I would expect to get separated from my family if I broke the law anywhere

Remember, the "crime" here if there is any is a misdemeanor. You actually think separating young children from their parents -- often through deceit and lies with little chance of them being reunited -- is appropriate for a misdemeanor?

I really don't get this strange sense of entitlement that SJWs have when it comes to breaking laws, ignore proprietors, and ignoring any notions of decorum.

The fact that you are using the pejorative "SJW" pretty much says everything we need to know about you.

Have you no decency?

This is not about a sense of entitlement. This is about basic human decency and you have demonstrated you have none. Look very closely at yourself in the mirror. Think about what kind of person it takes to justify ripping children from their parents for the misdemeanor of "wanting a better life."

Finally: Fuck off. I have no sympathy for ethically devoid assholes, and you have made it clear that you are one.

Re: Re: The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

There is a reason to the separation and it's that smugglers gangs and child traffickers use children to enter the US. Not all children are separated and those that are are for a reason. There might be some cases of mistakes made but isn't it better to protect the children being abused and trafficked and inflict a temporary discomfort to the ones mistakenly separated rather than let everyone in and take the risk?

“In the first five months of fiscal year ‘18, CBP saw a 315 percent increase in individuals using children to pose as family units to gain entry into the country compared to fiscal year ’17. Smugglers and drug traffickers know the loopholes well, and they know that if they reach our borders, they will be released into our country and evade the consequences of their criminal action,” Jonathan Hoffman, assistant secretary of DHS, said.

"“DHS takes seriously its responsibility to protect alien children from human smuggling, trafficking, and other criminal action. While ensuring that our immigration laws are enforced, DHS has continued the previous administration’s policy and will separate alien minor children from an adult for his or her protection or in cases where the adult or custodian has been referred for criminal prosecution. This is a policy that has not changed from the prior administration,” Hoffman said."

“As a result of some of these loopholes, we continue to see too many cases of children being used by smugglers, traffickers and transnational criminal organizations in an attempt to circumvent our laws and gain entry to the United States,” he said.

Re: Re: Re: The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

So, let's look at the actual numbers behind that statistic.

From 46 individuals using unrelated minors to pose as a family in fiscal year 2017, that is up to 191 over the period of Oct 2017-Feb 2018.

Compare that to the total: There were 75,622 family units apprehended in FY 2017, and 31,102 in the first five months of FY 2018.

So, it's a jump of .06% of all families apprehended to .6%. You're separating 163 families from their children for every one criminal you catch.

The Blackstone ratio is that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." By that measurement, you're overincarcerating immigrants when looking for your MS-13 smugglers, by at least three orders of magnitude.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

Also your blackstone ratio doesnt hold up because it doesn't take into account the fact that it's not just about catching guilty people but about saving children for a lifetime of abuse. Let's say every kid is separated for a few months and you save 0,6% from child traffickers that would've spent years being used by sickos, isn't that worth it ? These kids have also been probably taken from their parents.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

Re: Re: Re: The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

There is a reason to the separation and it's that smugglers gangs and child traffickers use children to enter the US.

Bullshit.

Even in the very, very, very rare cases where that's happening, it does not justify the practice here, where it's obvious and clear that the vast majority of cases are not smuggling cases.

If you have evidence of a smuggling/trafficking case, then remove the kids and find a place for them. Otherwise, don't.

There might be some cases of mistakes made but isn't it better to protect the children being abused and trafficked and inflict a temporary discomfort to the ones mistakenly separated rather than let everyone in and take the risk?

No. You should err in the other direction, because the vast majority of the cases would be in the other direction. Your statement above is the equivalent of "shouldn't we lock up anyone we suspect may murder someone to prevent murder, even if it means "temporary discomfort" for those who never would kill anyone?"

Your logic sucks, your humanity sucks, your ethics suck and you need to look yourself in the mirror because you are a despicable person.

The policy was not put in place to deal with loopholes and smugglers anyway. The administration flat out admitted it was a deterrence policy. So, seriously: go the fuck away, you are a horrible human being if you defend this policy. It is inhumane and indefensible.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

*Your logic sucks, your humanity sucks, your ethics suck and you need to look yourself in the mirror because you are a despicable person.*Can't make an argument or have a conversation without name-calling from the left as usual.

*The policy was not put in place to deal with loopholes and smugglers anyway. The administration flat out admitted it was a deterrence policy. So, seriously: go the fuck away, you are a horrible human being if you defend this policy. It is inhumane and indefensible.*

Deterrence is entirely humane because having borders is necessary and the only reason the world hasn't collapsed yet.Trump has proposed legislation and Schumer said that he wouldn't sign anything because they'd rather make Trump look bad. He just signed an executive order to stop the family separation as much as possible. Looks like you were wrong about the space thing being a smokescreen.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

Deterrence is entirely humane because having borders is necessary and the only reason the world hasn't collapsed yet.

Nonsense. The ends don't justify the means and we had borders before that cruelty started. And it is cruelty intended as a deterrent.

Remember, many of the people shouting the loudest in favour of this are either using illegal/undocumented labour or cheering on the policies that drive them to America in the first place. Drop the hypocrisy. Move away from the hypocrisy. Come and join the human race. We have cookies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The West really wasn't as wild as what liberals want these days.

Thanks Mike for saying it like it is. The brady bill already punishes people for crime they haven't committed by stealing firearms and banning for life legal ownership just for misdemeanors slung at innocent people who are subjected to torture in jails for coercing no contest pleas to pure bullshit conspired agaiinst honest citizens of usa.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Taken as a whole, the U.S. spends more on border and immigration enforcement than any country, expels as many migrants as any known country and doesn't have an outsize immigrant population. Those who do come here aren't any more prone to criminal behavior than U.S. citizens.

Re: You may remember his statement at the time

Ah, but pointing out things he said in the dim distant past (like, more than 10 minutes ago) obviously marks you out as a rad lefty commie or something. Consistency is for Liberals! And anybody demonstrating a memory span longer than the Lügenführer himself is automatically suspect.

Didn’t he also say he is merely enforcing an immigration law which was passed under the Democrats, anyway? Or was it the Christian Bible he was using as justification for his child abuse?

Re: Re: Re: Re: You may remember his statement at the time

Play stupid games, win fun prizes.

If you are a genuine asylum seeker than what the FUCK are you doing wading across the Rio Grande? This is the BULLSHIT part of the narrative here. You only get arrested if you cross the border illegally. In this regard, you are no different than anyone else that gets arrested in any society regardless of how you feel about how enlightened that society is.

This isn't even about dubious definitions of political asylum or people trying to game the rules.

This is all about dragging small children across the harshest parts of our country during the hottest part of they year.

Re: Play stupid games, win fun prizes.

This is all about dragging small children across the harshest parts of our country during the hottest part of they year.

You're almost there. Now, imagine exactly how desperate you'd need to get to do that.

You come to the American border, seeking asylum, but are made to wait weeks, then months. Food starts to run out. Your kids are crying all the time. You have no resources to turn back.

There's only one way available to you: forward. You're weaker every day, rationing the little you have so that the children have more, and leaving yourself not eating enough to avoid starving. Eventually, you make the decision: staying is endless waiting for death, but crossing gives you the slim opportunity for survival, and maybe even prosperity.

In that position, exactly how long would you wait to make that choice? To drag your small children across the harshest part of America during the hottest part of the year? Exactly how desperate would you need to be in order to attempt it?

Re: Re: Play stupid games, win fun prizes.

Wow... you just played right into his proof that your concerned with the "feels" more than the facts.

The question is... how desperate should they be before you agree with a government effort to deploy military force to these affect people?

Or is the game "save only those able to make it to our borders but FUCK THE REST OF THE DYING KIDS UNABLE TO MAKE IT?"

If you really cared about these people, you would be okay with one of the government taking in refugees to go and solve the problem with military might. That way more people can be saved, but that is not what you are after here... you only care to use the situation to bad mouth political opponents. You are a sad little simpleton without a heart at all.

Re: Re: Re: Play stupid games, win fun prizes.

If I thought that it might do some good, I might want military intervention.

All evidence is that the US intervening in other countries causes more suffering than it ameliorates. That the only "good" it accomplishes is funneling more wealth into the pockets of the corrupt rich at the expense of American lives and those of local civilians.

Look at Afghanistan; look at Iraq. Hundreds of thousands, or more, dead, and is the situation there any better than it was in 2000?

Someone in another thread blamed the refugees for not overthrowing their home country's hostile regime and setting up a more benevolent government, ignoring that whenever that happens, the U.S. often goes right back in and topples the new, nicer government to replace it with another hostile one.

Bring the troops home, close the foreign bases, stop selling arms outside of your own country, and then, maybe then, I'd accept that you have no moral obligation to take in refugees at the border. But when so many of the people trying to cross are fleeing from conflicts provoked, instigated, encouraged, armed, or straight up inflicted upon them by the United States of America, turning those people most harmed by your actions away from your borders is nothing more than morally turning your back on the predictable consequences of your own government's reprehensible actions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Play stupid games, win fun prizes.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

There's no "muslim ban" that was a campaign slogan said when there happened to be a lot of terrorism going on both here and in EU. It ended there. The 6 nation ban, which is just a very small percentage of the worlds muslims, are banned because their gov can not verify their peoples backgrounds.

DACA was being fought in federal court and was about to be declared unconstitutional, which it was. BO did not have authority to modify the law, and he was too ineffectual to get congress on board, hence the phone and pen illegal action.

It's not that there's anything against legal immigration, but it needs to be adjusted regularly to jive with the jobs that need to be filled and to allow for assimilation. It's a tool for our benefit, not theirs..

Re: Re: Re:

...You realize that it's still legal for people to immigrate to the US, right? They're just supposed to follow the rules and laws we have in place for it.

There have been reports that officials are turning asylum seekers away from designated ports of entry. There's a bridge on the US/Mexico border that is designated as a port of entry where people can cross and ask for asylum and there were people camped out on it for two weeks waiting to be let across to apply for asylum. They were running out of food and water, so many of them crossed "illegally" out of desperation.

The simple truth is that Trump and his administration don't want dark-skinned people coming into the country regardless of whether they follow the rules or not.

It was also recently reported that the immigration department would be going through the files of immigrants who legally became naturalized citizens to see if there was anything in their past that they could use to strip them of citizenship and deport them. Already a 62 year old man was arrested and is in ICE detention because of a misdemeanor conviction stemming from a domestic dispute 20 years ago.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The simple truth is that Trump and his administration don't want dark-skinned people coming into the country regardless of whether they follow the rules or not."

You act like the Trump administration is the ONLY administration that has been doing this. It has ALWAYS been happening, you just pick this moment to focus on it. Funny how only certain things matter when certain people are in power depending on the political season.

The same shit happening under Trump is the EXACT SAME shit that was happening under Obama. You just can't get to them all, and their idea of time is not the same as your idea of time. Their idea of asylum is not the same as your idea of asylum. What you think works is not the same as what they think works, or what I think works, or what the government think works, or what the agents on the border think works.

It is far more likely you are using a circumstance of the situation to lay false blame... which is far more likely considering that you are probably just another political party cheer leader where your own team does no wrong and the other team is evil incarnate. Seen it all before!

You want to blame someone or something? Blame the governments that drove these people to this end, blame the people for not rising up against their own governments to secure a future for their own children and instead run to the people that did do something for security INSTEAD OF FUCKING EMULATING THEM, blame the "don't interfere" people in other governments telling their governments they have no right to interfere. The blame is equal on ALL sides, there are ZERO victims here, except the children that get caught up in the selfish, short-sighted, bigoted, ignorant, vile evil of adult know nothings arm chair generaling their self-righteous contempt upon anyone not solving the issue in their "domgatically prescribed" way!

It's all bullshit but you can't get past your own bastard logic to understand!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, these centres were also open under Obama, and yes, what they were doing at the time was horrible.

However, Trump has added a new twist. Before, the majority of people in these centres were "unaccompanied minors," that is, children who were sent across the border without their parents.

Now, though, Trump's zero tolerance policy is doing something even worse: any family that crosses the border illegally is being held and charged instead of just being sent back. And, when the adults are charged, the children are being classified as "unaccompanied" and sent to these same centres.

That's what's raising the new uproar: not the same old horrors from under Obama, but an entirely new level of horror caused by tearing families apart when they cross together.

"Current U.S. immigration laws, when enforced, have the consequence of temporarily separating adults who arrive with children into separate detention facilities in order to prosecute the adults.

The policy of prosecuting immigrants for crossing the border illegally has been in place for multiple administrations. The Obama administration prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families in the process. So did the Bush administration.

Personal accounts from immigration lawyers tell a tale of Obama being equally concerned about unaccompanied minors traveling to the border and wanting to create a deterrent.

Photos of border detention facilities from the Obama-era, taken during 2014, look nearly identical to the ones taken during the Trump era.

You never see them, however. Here they are, taken in 2014 during a media tour of Obama-era detention facilities in Brownsville, Texas, and Nogales, Arizona."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

deterrentdɪˈtɛr(ə)nt/Submitnoun1.a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something."cameras are a major deterrent to crime"synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, dissuasion, damper, brake, curb, check, restraint;

This NEW policy, enacted in April, is intended to PUT PEOPLE OFF of crossing the border into America, the idea being that the thought of having your nursing infant ripped from your breast will make you think twice, you [insult].

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You act like the Trump administration is the ONLY administration that has been doing this. It has ALWAYS been happening, you just pick this moment to focus on it. Funny how only certain things matter when certain people are in power depending on the political season.

Maybe it's the fact that Trump is so openly racist that makes this episode stand out so much. Maybe it's the fact that Trump is an uncultured buffoon who embarrasses the U.S. every time he opens his mouth. Maybe it's the fact that he's the most openly corrupt president in U.S. history. Maybe it's the fact that he would clearly be more comfortable being a dictator than being president. Maybe it's the fact that he has the IQ of a doorknob. Maybe it's the fact that he lies every time he opens his big fat mouth for any reason other than to stuff a cheeseburger into it.

Maybe all these things point to the fact that not only is Trump a horrible person, he's a danger to the United States and world stability. The damage he's doing to our country and to our standing in the world will take years to fix, if it even can be fixed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

The poem is about empathy, not legality.

Things are only illegal if we MAKE them illegal; to claim that they are illegal THEREFORE we MUST send them back is the wrong way around. People (specifically racists and the politicians who represent them) WANT to send them back, THEREFORE we MAKE them illegal.

I am of the opinion that undocumented immigrants should be given clemency and a path toward citizenship, rather than living in fear of deportation. That is the humanist, empathetic thing to do.

Re: Re: Re:

Right. Not like some adult will be in control of the minors. Trust cannot be transferred to minors, they haven't reached the age of reason. And those that have will still be in control of adults. Even if they are incarcerated with their parents.

And it is punishment. The crime is only a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors do not 'require' incarceration.

Re:

Watching too many films

Presumably the Space Force will be based on not a moon, but a large spherical battle station capable of destroying whole planets. Ideally one with a glaring but easily fixable design flaw that can be exploited by a single-seater attack interceptor.

Re: Watching too many films

Re: Re: Watching too many films

And that is why I am surprised it has not been called Starfleet, a la Star Trek. (The things missing are the United Federation of Planets, but only because they have not made contact with us yet...at least not publicly, and we haven't cured the need to have 'things' but strive on self improvement, instead).

Re: Re: Re: Watching too many films

You shouldn't be, AAC.

* United Nations in space? John Bolton and Nikki Haley are having none of it; the Cardassians would veto anything that told them to get their mitts off Bajor.* Without a consumer economy, we'd be producing only for need. Who would decide that? That question was ignored in ST for some mad reason because our future isn't orange, it's unicorns and rainbows because it's the FUTURE. In space.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Watching too many films

I'm on board with that. When basic necessities are not denied anyone due to lack of opportunity we will be able to move forward on a planetary level.

I don't have a problem with inequality as such; I just want all of us to be able to access food, shelter, clean water, medicine and education. We can provide everyone with that and still have billionaires.

Re: Watching too many films

A Space Force sounds great. Finally, a place for all the White House space cadets. Maybe Bolton or Pompeo would want to lead the Star Wars battalion? From the Death Star, of course. Have to remember to send them Oxygen from time to time.

Re: Re:

I doubt budget cuts were a big concern in 1947 when the Air Force was officially created, and they had largely operated independently of the Army during WWII. It made sense to reorganize the post-war military. It makes no sense now.

Re:

Well, Republicans are supposed to be for tax cuts and smaller government...right?...Well aren't they?

This Space Force means one of two things. Either cuts to other military services, when we are engaged, but not at war, in several instances (it is hard to keep count these days), and expending huge sums on those. Or, a tax increase. Or is the administration planning on taking this out of some other budget departments...like Social Security or other lifeline type programs where they don't have enough now?

Sounds to me like a contract on republicanism. Both higher taxes and bigger government, while (likely but only supposed or expected) attacking the funding of social programs so the impact on other military branches is mitigated.

So how does one go about defining the new republicans? Bigger government along with bigger taxes, and a world that could have been friends but are now enemies do to an unnecessary trade war, started by us? Are the parties going to switch sides...again? Or are we gonna get a whole new variable of which is the worst evil?

Re: Re: Re:

"Trump's foreign policy is basically, "We're America, bitch!""

I would say Trump's ONLY policy, foreign or domestic, is "me me me motherfuckers". Trump actually does not care about America, he cares about how it reflects on his idea of what it should look like monetary wise.

Re:

Can you express some ethical/legal necessity for the separation?

Even if the parents are in the US illegally, what is the need for the separation? Is it a cost thing? More expensive to keep families together rather than in large cages with like ages/sexes? Is that sufficient for the behavior of law enforcement?

What if the parents are granted asylum? Is the separation still legitimate?

Re: Re:

Yea it's called Flores v. Loretta Lynch the 9th Circuit upheld the Flores Consent Decree of 1997 and SCOTUS refused to take the case.

It's the same ruling that Mr. Bush Jr and Mr. Obama followed it's just now convenient to act stupid. Keep in mind no illegal alien is afforded anything but basic Habeas Corpus under any law of the land. After that they fall under strict Immigration Laws one of which is this Consent Decree.

If you fallow the technical laws the US government has no choice but to separate those kids from people who may or may not be there real parents.

Re: Re: Re:

Since when has our government actually followed all of their own laws? They tend to do so, selectively, when it fits an agenda whether stated or left to the imagination, and often except themselves. So they do have a choice.

Oh, and there are ways to determine if 'those kids' belong to a particular set of 'parents', which include documents as well as various tests, such as DNA. To NOT do so seems a bit authoritarian, which is the demeanor they seem to want to project. It appears that they think if they are cruel enough, and the word gets out, then others will not try illegal entry. It's the cruel part that has everyone upset.

Re: US government has no choice but to separate those kids

“The Flores settlement, named for a teenage girl who brought the case in the 1980s, requires the government to release children from custody and to their parents, adult relatives or other caretakers, in order of preference.

If those options are exhausted, authorities must find the "least restrictive" setting for the child who arrived without parents.

...

The decision did not state parents must be released. Neither, though, did it require parents to be kept in detention, apart from their children.”

Re: Re: Re:

Also worth noting that in the case of asylum seekers, it is prohibited to impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves, so prosecuting asylum seekers as illegal immigrants is a violation of international law.

The US is a party to this convention. I love the hypocrisy of a government that complains about people who violate our laws while simultaneously ignoring international laws that we agreed to comply with.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So America's not supposed to be better than that? Is that seriously your answer? What about American exceptionalism?

Yes, I'm clearly being facetious since we're one of the biggest violators of international law in the world. But your whataboutism is complete horseshit. You didn't even bother naming one country worse than America. Surely you can think of one, tovarisch?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's not true. You're referring to European Court of Justice ruling which obviously has no jurisdictional bearing on jurisprudence outside of the EU and a few other non-EU States in Europe that have agreed to apply the Dublin Convention provisions.

Unless there is another treaty that I'm unaware of, the concept of returning refugees to the first border they cross only applies to the Dublin Convention States, and even then it only requires applicants to seek asylum in the EU member State whose border they first crossed when entering the EU. There has been no attempt to deport Syrians who passed through Turkey into Greece back to Turkey, but hopeful asylees have been sent back from other member States to Greece and Italy in order to apply for asylum in the country where they first crossed the EU border.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The US merely withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC, not to be confused with the UNHCR), which is a body where serious human rights abusers can get together and fail to admonish themselves, while spending the vast majority of their time bashing Israel.

What If It’s A Holocaust Survivor Doing The Godwinning?

Holocaust survivor Yoka Verdoner was one of a growing chorus who have likened family separations to what happened at concentration camps. She told the Guardian the practice was "as evil and criminal as what happened to me and my siblings as children in Nazi Europe. It needs to be stopped immediately."

Re: Re: What If It’s A Holocaust Survivor Doing The Godwinning?

If a minority is not a democrat then it is perfectly fine to racially disparage them and verbally abuse them!

The left is all about trying to create a caste system. They failed when republicans took their slaves away and they need to find another way to turn people into slaves.

The individual is the greatest minority and the democrat are against the individual. They are pro sectarian, they are pro group, they are pro fraternity! The republicans are not entirely guilt free either but they are easily being outdone by the dems of late by large margins.

Re: What If It’s A Holocaust Survivor Doing The Godwinning?

Re: What If It’s A Holocaust Survivor Doing The Godwinning?

Someone should tell him that no body is being taken away to be killed. They are taken in to be cared for, fed, clothed, and getting medical attention. This whole "history repeating itself" theme is just too fucking crazy to take anyone who spouts it seriously..

Astro Nuts

Kinda hard to imagine a country that has scuttled the space program having a "Space Force." Nice of Trump to declare that he wants us to go back to the moon - while slashing NASA and education budgets. I guess.

Re: Astro Nuts

Trump would rather funnel that money into a military he can directly boss around dictator style and make a big show of how the U.S. is better than everyone (even though one of the things that made us better than everyone was NASA)

Re: Re: Re: Re:

re: Janet Reno for the baby killer win!

Elian Gonzalez...if you recall that fiasco, remember how the first thing his grandmother did when he returned? She literally nibbled his putz, and the then-left didnt say a word about it~ and this, at the height of Satanic panic daycare hoaxing.

And Branch Davidians....it seems that if we roast a few bad kids, the useful eaters get fed well.

And, whew! The useful eaters saved us from more Branch Davidians!

Now, look! Extra money flowing to states, for sleeping cells for good kids from othered places!

(And the federal dollars that flow to the states that kidnap them into foster "care".)

This was all described in industrial terms in the gender lesbian feminist writings that preceded this event.

Shame on everyone for not letting people flood their countries, but oh damn you better not interfere with those nations either.

Immigrants are not treated well anywhere and picking on just one side of the isle shows that integrity is a non-value here. Other than the "rhetoric" in the news about immigration I have seen zero change in the number of illegals doing the same old thing for the past 20 years.

It is so typical that you hyper focus on words being moved around but pay little attention to the actual result of the work at hand. If a democrat slaughtered a million "undocumented workers" but said "we welcome them" you clowns would not give a damn! If a republican says "shit hole country" and only a few hundred died you would be ripping your own heads off in a fit.

Whatever, you guys are no different than Trump when the rubber meets the road and I bet that pisses you right the fuck off!

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

if that was vomit, when what to you call that comes out of your mouth? total waste? at least vomit still has nutritional value even thought it might be disgusting.

As far as you are concerned you are more than happy for people to just dying, being raped, abused, or other in an effort to make it to the border. But hell, you don't care, you get to sit here on the internet trash talking one government that is doing what every other government has done or is still doing too!

Nice job fuckwad, you only care enough because you can use the situation to make "one" person look bad when in reality... it makes everyone look bad, but you can't be bothered to share in the blame can you... too busy enjoying those creature comforts you are clearly okay with denying anyone not able to make it to a border, especially those little babies.

Let me make it clear, you are a sick fucking human... lets take our militaries and take over these fucking governments causing this problem, IF you actually gave a real damn, but you don't!

Re:

Last time I checked, Democrats were not calling for the deaths of undocumented immigrants, nor were they separating migrant children not even old enough to talk from their families. Now, Republicans—Trump specifically—may not be doing the first just yet, but given how the party in power has essentially sanctioned the second by refusing to challenge Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, I would not put too much faith in our wannabe dictator-in-chief not doing the first at some point.

Re: Re:

"Last time I checked, Democrats were not calling for the deaths of undocumented immigrants, nor were they separating migrant children not even old enough to talk from their families."

Oh yes they fucking do!

When people talk about military intervention and you fuckers go sideways it is the same as CALLING for innocent death!

And the separation of family's is NOTHING NEW. The people on borders listen to people lying all fucking day long, in fact it is the one thing you can go to your death being certain of... lies. Just because a human shows up with 3 kids does not mean they are actually their kids. How hard would it be to steal a child too small or afraid to speak for themselves? Not hard after they have been beaten and raped for a few weeks before they got to the border. Do you think the dregs of humanity cannot think of this? They have though of worse!

Unlike most people here I do spend time helping the less fortunate... let me tell you... nothing but lies all over the place. And it's not even because they are trying to game the system, some of it is because they are embarrassed or too proud to admit things. Some of them are more than willing to create any lie just to tug the heart strings. Some of them would just murder you for your bubblegum or because you looked at them wrong. Some just do it because they have a pathological need to lie for no other reason that it gets their damned rocks off!

Re: Re: Re:

When people talk about military intervention and you fuckers go sideways it is the same as CALLING for innocent death!

Oh, I as a democrat would love some military intervention. Nothing like another 18 year war to keep the military industrial complex moving. I mean, we give them so much funding, we might as well make those fuckers work.

Welfare sucks, and I for one am not content to let our military just sit on their collective asses doing nothing. Let's bomb some shit! We have the success stories of Iraq and Afghanistan! Fully functional democracies and the region is stable as all fuck!

And while we're at it, let's reinstate the draft, but this time, no deferments. Got bone spurs? Fuck you and your feet! We'll find something for you to do! Don't tell me you can't work - what are you, some kind of welfare recipient not willing to earn your keep?
Are you some well-off rich prick who thinks you're going to college? Fuck that shit too! You need to show some fucking patriotism and carry a gun! You wouldn't sit for the national anthem, why would you not serve your country for real?

That was sarcasm clearly, but honestly, I'd love some military intervention, with the stipulation that those deciding who/what/where to blow up put their own kids on the line. Because this country over the last 20 years has been fuck-all stupid about what countries they decided to start a fight with, and calling for more stupid with the retard that the russians elected president isn't going to end well for anyone.

WE SHOULD RIP BARRON TRUMP FROM HIS MOTHER’S ARMS AND PUT HIM IN A CAGE WITH PEDOPHILES AND SEE IF MOTHER WILL WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE GIANT ASSHOLE SHE IS MARRIED TO. 90 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE STREETS ON THE SAME WEEKEND IN THE COUNTRY. FUCK

It answers all of my questions about how the left built a massive gulag system here starting in 1993, and separated fathers from their children, putting them into debt bondage, an patholigizing masculinity.

The Domestic Violence Industrial Complex to the rescue! Cuz men are all violent rapists!(certainly our CIA controlled media had nothing to do with the narrative)

Then, a little quantitative easing, and a Welfare State to full blown police state as we see today.Cuz~useless eaters!

So....we lock up our population, and import new kids, each of which guarantees a million dollars from the feds to the state that kidnaps them.

I would think you would be FOR this form of kidnapping! Money in the bank.